Forum

'Climategate' emails show case not closed

Keith Muir (NZ Skeptic 109) ends "I rest my case." But he never makes a case; he only quotes opinion. This is unacceptable in Law or Science.

The alarmists fought hard to keep their data secret; but (less the amount they destroyed) it is now largely available on the internet. Skeptics should look up the data, the tables and graphs. These show clearly, the Earth is not warming, the ice caps are not melting. All the predictions of the climate alarmists have failed.

Muir quotes insurance companies (via Scientific American) claiming that extreme weather events have increased. Well it is in the interest of insurance companies to make such a claim, but is it true? Published work shows that tornadoes, cyclones, floods and droughts etc have decreased in number and severity.

The Great Global Warming Scam fell to pieces with the release of the Climategate emails in 2009. This is a selection from Climategate; it should be sufficient to expose the dishonesty but read the whole of the first tranche release, and see how the IPPC summit was ruined.

Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang and Thomas Karl:

"Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FoIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit."

Kevin Trenberth on how to deal with climate skeptics:

"I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some way. In that regard I dont think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys as lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter-rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do."

Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:

"Here are some speculations on correcting sea temperatures to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global [average]."

Mike Mann to Phil Jones:

"Be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy [Revkin of the New York Times] and what emails you copy him in on. Hes not as predictable as we'd like."

How can Keith Muir imagine that the so-called climate scientists are to be taken at face value when their dishonesty is so well documented? They got away with it because of the failures of editors and science journalists. Unfortunately skeptic groups must take blame too. The truth was out there, but many people turned a blind eye. [abridged]

Jim Ring

Nelson

Homeopaths stronger than ever?

Re: 'Homeopaths agree to dilute their claims' (NZ Skeptic Spring 2013) - If homoeopaths do indeed dilute their claims, does that mean their claims become stronger the more they are diluted?

Graham Sharpe

Wellington